Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman

Supreme Court of the United States · 1935 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSeventh AmendmentJury TrialDirected VerdictReserved Questions of LawSeventh Amendmentcommon-law practicereserved ruling

Facts

The plaintiff sued in federal court in New York for personal injuries allegedly caused by the defendant's negligence. At the close of the evidence, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint and for a directed verdict on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support a plaintiff's verdict. The trial court reserved decision on both motions, submitted the case to the jury subject to its ruling on the reserved questions, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. No objection was made to that procedure, and the trial court later denied the motions and entered judgment on the verdict.

Issue

When a federal trial court reserves decision on motions challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, takes a verdict subject to that reservation, and later enters judgment for the plaintiff, may an appellate court that finds the evidence insufficient direct dismissal on the merits rather than order a new trial consistent with the Seventh Amendment? Does Slocum require a new trial in that situation?

Rule

The Seventh Amendment preserves the substance of the common-law jury-trial right, including the distinction between questions of law for the court and questions of fact for the jury. Where the trial court reserves a legal question such as the sufficiency of the evidence, takes the verdict subject to that reservation, and the parties do not object, the common-law practice permits the court or reviewing court to make the disposition required by the ruling on the reserved question, including dismissal on the merits or judgment for the opposing party, without requiring a new trial.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal negligence trial in Chicago, Dana Mercer sues Lakefront Parcel Transit for injuries from a loading-dock incident. At the close of all evidence, the company moves for a directed verdict on the ground that Dana's proof is legally insufficient; the judge expressly reserves decision, tells the jury its verdict will be subject to that ruling, and no one objects. The jury returns a verdict for Dana, and the judge later denies the motion and enters judgment on the verdict.

If the court of appeals concludes the evidence was legally insufficient, what is the proper disposition under the Seventh Amendment?

Explanation. Where the trial court reserves a legal question such as the sufficiency of the evidence, takes the verdict subject to that reservation, and the parties do not object, the common-law practice permits the reviewing court to direct the disposition required by the reserved ruling. Because sufficiency is a question of law and the verdict was conditional, directing dismissal on the merits does not violate the Seventh Amendment. (Derived from Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman (1935).)